Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 18 Oct 2006 03:42:38 +1000 | From | Nick Piggin <> | Subject | Re: [RFC] Remove temp_priority |
| |
Martin Bligh wrote: > This is not tested yet. What do you think? > > This patch removes temp_priority, as it is racy. We're setting > prev_priority from it, and yet temp_priority could have been > set back to DEF_PRIORITY by another reclaimer.
I like it. I wonder if we should get kswapd to stick its priority into the zone at the point where zone_watermark_ok becomes true, rather than setting all zones to the lowest priority? That would require a bit more logic though I guess.
For that matter (going off the topic a bit), I wonder if try_to_free_pages should have a watermark check there too? This might help reduce the latency issue you brought up where one process has reclaimed a lot of pages, but another isn't making any progress and has to go through the full priority range? Maybe that's statistically pretty unlikely?
-- SUSE Labs, Novell Inc. Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |